4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Ratskinner]

Yeah, IMHO though there has always been a lot of this stuff. PCs have had "once a day" abilities since time immemorial. Why in fact does the Cleric's god only grant him CLW a certain number of times and not enough times for the execution of his god's aims? MUCH of the game was always game, and gamist, and explained only secondarily in terms of the world. Much of the world itself was and is for that matter defined in terms of what makes a good game. At some level it is ALL meta. So I always found the whole concept that there was any deep dichotomy between 4e and 1e say to be at best HIGHLY subjective.

Totally agree. I think WotC would have been well-served to do a better job pointing this out when 4e arrived (as others have noted in a lot of the criticisms upthread). I think the disconnect is simply that people had built up long and deep narrative habits with the previous constructions (HP, Vancian Magic, etc), and were put off when 4e asked them to abandon or retool those habits. I mean, I consider myself fairly sophisticated, and have played/run plenty of goofy indie games. FATE is even my preferred "traditional" system. Yet somehow I managed to run and play 4e for a year or so without seeing all this stuff clearly (and I suspect my group's experiences suffered for it.) In fact, its only recently through conversations on this board that I've seen any of it. (Having no 4e group since that initial try, I had not impetus to continue with it and the edition wars drove me away from the online communities.)

In any case the vast majority of the 4e powers that a fighter will have are easily understandable in terms of hitting things with weapons, albeit they can be somewhat fantastical. When you look at the activity of the character AS A WHOLE, there's not all that much 'meta' about the results at all, nor all that vastly different from earlier edition fighters (maybe its a bit more fantastic, depends on your style of play probably). Your level 3 fighter has a daily, at least one AP, several uses of encounter powers, etc all mushed together in a mix of attacks, hits, buffs, debuffs, crits, AP use, etc. If you reduce the narrative to its purely in-world form you can't tell that the fighter has a daily, 3 encounter powers, a utility power, 2 at-wills, and an AP every other fight on average. In other words it is a pretty darn successfully integrated meta. This is a whole mini-industry of 4e criticism that just baffles me.

Sure, for the fighter maybe, now put a warlord on the table, it can vary quite a bit even within those classes. I think its important to note that that's actually a barrier to understanding. You can play 4e and not realize that the ADEU powers are "meta" that way, until you run into the fraction that must be and your game goes "bonk". 4e is similar enough that you can read it with a 3e eye and almost get it (like I did). The first-run books don't do much to disabuse you of this. I often wonder how many people are playing Pathfinder or 3e because of this. (Certainly plenty of electrons have flashed across the web because of it.) Having said that, 4e does provide a much more specific feel that previous editions, and I think its still legitimate (of course) for someone to say that they just didn't like it.

 

[D'karr]

And I honestly think you are underestimating the number of players who get enjoyment out of having the most powerful build or being the last one standing and will select powers, feats, themes, and backgrounds based on this.

And if it's not happening at my table, who cares? It's not a problem at my table because the players are invested in the campaign, besides the possibility of powergaming. They are invested in their characters, the stories that they create, and their interactions within the "game world". Whether they powergame is irrelevant to all of that.

I also find it strange that a whole sub-forum (CharOps) exists for this type of thing on the game's site, yet people don't believe it could seriously inform the creation of characters at the table...

So what? If it doesn't affect the table I'm running in, who cares that there are "millions" of people talking about their 12th level paladin on a game site. In addition I'm pretty sure that most of the "advice" about powergaming a paladin is still going to be using the thematic strengths of that character.

If the DM and players at a particular table don't have a problem with the powergaming is it really a problem? The powergaming angle is usually overblown in anecdotes, and strawman cases. Just because a lot of people might discuss the best way to optimize X, Y, or Z does not mean that there is a problem with people optimizing X, Y, or Z at my table. And at the end of the day that is the only table I care about.

Just because some people are doing it does not mean that everyone is, and if it doesn't affect your table, then who cares if others are doing this? Play the game the way you like, and let others play the way they like.

If you're the DM and you don't want to have a cowardly paladin then talk to the specific player that is doing this about your expectation of thematic adherence. A lot of these "imagined" problems usually fail to note that the game can easily be tweaked to the expectations of both the DM and players; if they only took the time to talk to each other instead of making wild assertions on internet forums.

Character classes and material for the game appears at a game table at the discretion of both the DM and players. If someone created a world that has no elves then players will probably not be playing elves in that game. Dark Sun has no divine casters, and that didn't destroy the game.

The most important thing is that both the DM and players are clear about their expectations for the game. If somebody wants to play an elf, in the no-elf campaign there are two possible outcomes. The player doesn't play an elf, or the DM makes a concession to the concept and allows an elf. That type of give and take should not be difficult to understand.

In addition, just because people might powergame does not mean that they are not also role playing. These two things are not mutually exclusive. That is a lie that needs to be exposed for what it is at every turn. I've met my share of power gamers, and many, if not most, of them did a pretty good job of role playing their class thematically; in addition to being very effective in combat.

The themes for the paladin are pretty clear in the class writeup, and the power selections and feats usually reinforce those themes in a mechanical way. If someone wants to play against type, is that a problem with the game, or the person playing against type? The mechanics of the rules already reward the adherence to the archetype as described in the writeup, if a person wants to play against those expectations they really are doing a pretty bad job of powergaming.

A paladin is mostly a melee defender with divine thematic elements. If I want to play a cowardly paladin and skulk in shadows, and shoot creatures from a distance I'm going to suck in a major way when compared to the rogue. Most of my powers will be completely ineffective if I play in that manner. Is that really powergaming?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, for the fighter maybe, now put a warlord on the table, it can vary quite a bit even within those classes. I think its important to note that that's actually a barrier to understanding. You can play 4e and not realize that the ADEU powers are "meta" that way, until you run into the fraction that must be and your game goes "bonk". 4e is similar enough that you can read it with a 3e eye and almost get it (like I did). The first-run books don't do much to disabuse you of this. I often wonder how many people are playing Pathfinder or 3e because of this. (Certainly plenty of electrons have flashed across the web because of it.) Having said that, 4e does provide a much more specific feel that previous editions, and I think its still legitimate (of course) for someone to say that they just didn't like it.

There are certainly some pretty meta-gamey specific things. CaGI really CAN be a lot like that for instance, and rogue powers move that way somewhat more than fighter powers. OTOH I think even if you're a warlord a lot of it can look a whole lot like "oh, I just told Joe to dodge left instead of right" ('slides' Joe to the left). I mean it kinda depends on how much you're willing to consider the mechanics to be provisional at times, the fighter might have moved left, but the warlord retconned that, he never DID go left, he went right. I'm not sure that's really meta-game, though it could be jarring for some people I guess.

Of course the "how meta-game is healing" thing can go on forever. Clerics can cower behind "its magic" to some extent, but again there's no logic for why the 1e cleric can't just keep pumping the heals out to the faithful all day. Interestingly enough the 4e cleric CAN pump them out almost all day! Maybe he's LESS meta-gamey, lol. The Warlord hasn't the fig leaf of explicit magic, but at least IMHO Inspiring Word et al still has more than just game logic going for it. You can certainly invent situations where it works in which the "it isn't magic at all" mantra just won't fly, but is this really making 4e more meta-gamey than say 1e? Didn't seem like it to me, but YMMV of course.

I think in general a lot of things didn't just instantly pop about 4e. I mean, yeah, I could see it was different from day one, but it did take some play before it all started to really make sense. I've had a few players that still don't 'get' the game that well, though oddly enough the one I'm thinking of is perfectly happy playing it, lol.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's like saying a 3e Fighter can't cast Invisibility

Uh? I'll say "not in my mind."

- obviously there are some things a highly skilled PC can do that an unskilled PC can't. Athletic challenges that the Epic Fighter struggles to beat won't be beatable by the Epic Wizard's Athletics roll.

Did you see what I was replying to? This iss essentially the point I was trying to make to Balesir. He said "In 3.5 the difference between the 8th level fighter with +15 or so Climb and the Wizard with +1 (if lucky) made it really crucial that the Wiz didn't (ever) have to roll Climb..."

I was just pointing out what you said, essentially. This is a problem even in 4e, it's just that 4e closed the gap somewhat.

But the big difference from 3e is that at 20th or 30th level each PC is all-round competent in terms of mundane, below-Tier challenges; the Wizard has at least +15 climb and can shin up a rough cliff ok. He has at least +15 on STR checks and can break open a mundane wooden door, should such a thing present itself. And the Fighter has at least +15 Diplomacy and won't be a tongue-tied clod in social situations. He can't waltz into Hell and charm Asmodeus with his voice like the Bard PC maybe can, but he can court the Princess and if the GM throws a DC 20 Diplomacy check at him he won't be "I'll Get Me Coat" - unlike 3e.

This is the case if the DM is using "objective" DCs, but certainly not the case if everything scales (which seems the intent of the rules, in my mind, though more explicitly in Essentials than the first PHB, from what I know). If everything scales, you can have the exact same problem that Balesir was saying wasn't there. As always, play what you like

S'mon has answered this pretty well, already, but I'll just add a little end-note. Because the gap - as opposed to the actual values - is more static, the structure of skill challenges can remain similar. Easy DCs can still be hit by more or less anybody; setting an easy DC that everybody must make or suffer some setback (not a full "failure" per failure, but maybe a lost healing surge) is quite viable. Hard DCs will only really be within the reach of specialists, but that will be the same at all levels.

Isn't this essentially the same as, say, a DC 15 check in 3.5? The Wizard with +1 can hit the check, and the specialist basically never fails. Yes, I did agree that the gap closed somewhat, and I still agree with that. I just don't think it closed very meaningfully, unless you use "objective" DCs.

Note that the original (rough estimate) scenario I gave was only at level 8. The 4e examples were takling about Epic levels; in 3.5, at (say) level 20 the gap could easily be Fighter/Rogue +28, Wizard (still) +1. No wonder the Wizard got cold and clammy at the thought that s/he couldn't fly everywhere by that level!

Which is basically the same thing on "Easy" DCs (DC 15 skill check), while "Hard" DCs (DC 30) are only achievable by the specialists. Again, yes, 4e tightened the math here, but not enough to really make a big difference, as long as you scale DCs, in my opinion. You still have "Easy" DCs that untrained people can make, and "Hard" DCs that only specialists can make. It's about the same, from where I'm sitting. As always, play what you like

 

[NewJeffCT]

I'm wondering, do you regularly run games across the whole level range? I haven't since my first 3e campaign which ran around 19 levels from 2000 to I think 2004. My two big 3e campaigns after that ran to ca 8th level. My three big 4e campaigns from 2009 ran to 8th, 10th, and currently at 10th, nearly 11th, after 2 years. Only my ongoing 4e Loudwater campaign might one day go the whole level range in another 4 years or so, but I'm planning to run several other limited-range 4e campaigns while it's going on.

So, for me the 1-8 or 1-10 range is a typical campaign duration in both 3e and 4e, and Teleport and Raise Dead do indeed typically come in during the Endgame, same as in typical 1e.

In my experience, I was a player in a 3E campaign that went from level 1 into the mid 20s. As a DM, I ran a 3.5E campaign where the players went from level 1 to level 18 at the end. And, the 4E game I ran went from level 1 to level 24 at the end, and we had to cut it short because I moved. So, in my experience, the games went a lot higher than they did in 1e/2e.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sure, but what if there is no single "big bad". If one of the PCs is a servant of law and the other of chaos (and my game is heading somewhat in that direction) what common foe do they necessarily have?

Maybe they don't and being total opposites with no common goal, they start in on each other. Maybe the party breaks and each one starts a private war against the other, using lower-level "companion" NPCs to attack holdings or seize important items of the opposing player.

I imagine it's going to be different at different tables, and honestly it's not really a place I like to have my PCs go since a lot of people can't seperate PC from player.

IE: I had a Githyanki swordmage in one campaign and had trouble roleplaying him at the start, so I went and read up on Githyanki a bit(the character was made for me a bit to power build), turns out, Gith don't really like anyone else, especially non-Gith, and they don't like being on the material planes either. Since generally Githyanki are only there to search for some magical sword bits or something, I played him as being exiled from his people and their weird god-queen. He didn't like any of the other PCs even if he at times respected their skill in battle. He was overall, a rude, disrespectful, elitist jerk. Once I got into the role, I played it well, but sometimes players had difficulty separating themselves from their characters, or me from mine, and took my character's insults against their characters personally.

Because sometimes people can't separate PC from player, I do try to minimize the alignment variance between players, because things can get messy if players start taking the PC dialogue personally.

I'm talking mostly about action resolution mechanics that can handle differences in effort by the PCs, aimed at different goals. The "War by Other Means" skill challenge template in DMG 2 (p 96) is a good, if limited, example of what I have in mind. But there is no equivalent model for combat, for instance. The combat mechanics just tend to suck if all the PCs aren't fighting together on the same side.

I'll make a note here: I don't really read the DMGs. So I had to look this one up.

Ah, well I've run things like that before, and it's certainly a very solid way for players of opposing goals to play up their angle while still participating in the same event.

Sure, mechanics get sticky if player A considers player B an enemy while B considers C an enemy but A an ally. I do allow such things from time to time at the table, and they often have very interesting results which I have no problem at all with. But I do like to avoid it early on at least.

 

[pemerton]

I'm curious though... is this consistent with their class tenets in 4e? Nothing inherent to the Paladin class makes it a "valiant" archetype anymore

I don't agree with this. When you look at the class features plus the class powers, they're all about being a valiant defender.
[MENTION=30619]Siberys[/MENTION] and [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] have elaborated this upthread - I agree with them. There is also the fact that paladins have the best AC and large number of healing surges, which gives a mechanical for them to take the risks and wear the hurt (otherwise the party as a whole will have to rest with one PC still having surges unused).

I'd say it does. You can be an evil but valiant Paladin of Bane. If you want to be a cowardly thug, be a Blackguard.

Though don't Blackguards also get Valiant Smite? Perhaps a case of the desire for mechanical economy leading to a failure in naming.

I think the complaint here is that "being valiant" requires facing risk. A power/style that grants you bonuses to do something like wade into combat necessarily reduces that risk. Which, I think, is just a problem with the character/PC/rules divide. So, if I understand the 4e position; all 4e powers are metagame, the paladin isn't aware of power, but the player is. That's a different design than previous editions, where characters seem likely to be aware of most of the abilities on their sheet. (To the point where D&D parodies can use it as a joke.) It seems to me that a lot of the headier edition-skirmishing I see revolves around this very kind of point.

I basically agree with your take on edition skirmishing, and the metagame stuff (though I don't think all powers are as metagame as Valiant Strike - but even close weapon bursts are better seen, in my view, as tweaking with the turn sequence rules rather than as standing for a single 360-degree swing of the weapon, which is how I've seen some 3E players characterise Whirlwind Attack).
[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] takes an interesting alternative view from mine, though - with the paladin experiencing the "to hit" bonus as a divine blessing. [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] seems to have a similar view. That's one reasonable alternative to my meta-game take.

Yes, technically a 4e Paladin could act like a coward and nothing mechanical would happen. So what? Your wizard can run around swinging a sword too... I mean why would you play that way?

I agree with this - and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] also said much the same upthread, that the tightness of mechanics and theme means by playing your PC mechanically you get pulled holus-bolus into its theme. And this is independent of whether we read the powers as ingame or meta-game.
[MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION], I'm not sure what advantage there is in the XP-bonus approach (you get stronger over the long term) compared to the build-it-into-the-power aproach (you get stronger immediately, in context). Be that as it may, Gygax's AD&D did try to have something like what you suggest, only it was built into the training time and cost rules rather than the actual XP requirements. (Although Gygax only gives class specifcations for the 4 core classes, not for sub-classes, where extrapolation would be required.)

Your level 3 fighter has a daily, at least one AP, several uses of encounter powers, etc all mushed together in a mix of attacks, hits, buffs, debuffs, crits, AP use, etc. If you reduce the narrative to its purely in-world form you can't tell that the fighter has a daily, 3 encounter powers, a utility power, 2 at-wills, and an AP every other fight on average. In other words it is a pretty darn successfully integrated meta. This is a whole mini-industry of 4e criticism that just baffles me.

I agree with this - the metagame is not visible within the fiction because of the integration/overlap/multiplicity that you describe.

 

[LostSoul]

I find this a bit similar to what I wrote in response to Lost Soul, above: if being "good" has a mechanical reward, are you doing it to be "good" any more? Systems like this tend to get players "optimising" them - and it's an area that I don't think benefits from that.

That was a good post and I agree with this. I think that if you want to explore "good" then you want to have a system like Burning Wheel, where you're mechanically rewarded either way you choose to go - as long as you're putting your PC into situations where you have to make desperate choices. That way you don't have to consider optimizing the system when making your choices, you can just go along with playing your (compelling) PC.

 

[pemerton]

if this is becoming the central issue of play, I think I would suggest changing systems.

<snip>

if its just a creeping weakness on the periphery, I'd just ignore it.

For various reasons from laziness to (lack of) group consensus there won't be any system change.

To some extent I will ignore it. I'm also experimenting, in a very modest way, with some ways of trying to handle differences of PC interest within the 4e framework. (Not mechanical techniques so much as approaches to encounter framing and resolution.)

One nice thing about the Law/Chaos axis is that there is always room for a "big bad", as Michael Moorcock pointed out. Extreme Chaos looks an awful lot like Law, for one thing; Orcus is handy from this perspective, since he wants to have total control for himself - something other "Chaotics" would really not want to see... Then there is always the "Lovecraft" option of stuff that just lies beyond all the "alignment" guff!

In short, if you want it to remain a party-centred game, I think you need to "situation frame" a Big Bad for the PCs to oppose. If they "ascend" post-Epic, after all, they look to be balanced at the moment - who might be opposed to that? Or whose purposes would be harmed by Law and Chaos working together? Ioun, maybe?

The main "enemies" in my game are Orcus, Lolth, Pazrael/Pazuzu and Vecna. But things are complicated a bit by the Invoker's amibguous worshp of (some aspects of) Vecna, even though the party is in an alliance with Kas; and by the fact that one of the PCs accepted a boon from Pazrael which led to disaster for the PCs duergar hosts.

The ranger-cleric and paladin both serve the Raven Queen. The paladin, in particular, is very single-minded and resolute; as a tiefling, he also has an orientation towards mortal affairs being impermanent and destined to reach an end despite the illusory beliefs of those who are swept up in them. Their hatred of undead and Orcus is general across the party (despite the alliance with Kas.)

The invoker serves Erathis, Ioun, the Raven Queen, to a lesser extent Bane, has some sort of relationship also with Levistus (devilish enemy of Asmodeus), and (as mentioned) some affinity with Vecna (strong enough that he was able to identify the Sword of Kas by the fact that it burned him when he touched it). He wields the Rod of (currently 5 of) 7 Parts, and is therefore resolutely opposed to all primordials and chaos.

The fighter-cleric worships Moradin and wields Whelm (a dwarven thrower artefact) and so hates primordials, giants, goblins, orcs etc. He is pretty close to the invoker, therefore, but with less nuance.

The drow sorcerer is the most provocative - a member of a secret Corellon-worshipping cult dedicated to undoing the sundering of the elves, he hates Lolth. Also demons (he is a Demonskin Adept, contemptuously stealing power from the Abyss) and devils. But not chaos and primordials.

I'm not sure how things will evolve in the game - but Orcus, Miska the Wolf Spider, Vecna and Lolth are all likely to figure in some fashion or other. I also want to use Ygorl, the Entropic time-travelling slaad lord, but I'm no 100% sure Ygorl will be an enemy.

 

[Hussar]

I am going to disagree... especially if someone goes to the CharOp boards and uses the advice and rankings there to design their character, you can very much end up with a character who has powers that do not necessarily "fit" his character.

As someone who very rarely looks at the CharOp boards, could I get a more specific example? I know that when I made my Eladrin Warlord, I perused one of the Charop character guides and it seemed pretty spot on for the most part. It laid out the options available and weighed the pros and cons of each.

Didn't seem too interested in creating characters that didn't fit.